Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Transparent California completes annual data collection of public pay, pensions

By Leave a Comment

Information on 2.7 million public employees from 2,518 agencies and 54 pension plans

Shows 15 police officers in Contra Costa were paid more than $500,000 in 2022, including the highest to El Cerrito Police Chief at over $850,000 plus, 10 others from his dep’t

Highest paid in the state was Vallejo Police Chief at $953,396.61

Transparent California, the state’s largest database of public pay and pension data, has completed data collection efforts for records detailing 2022 employee compensation and pension payments made by almost all public agencies in our state!

In the last year we’ve added data on 2.7 million public employees obtained from 2,518 agencies, and 1.4 million pension records from 54 pension plans to our database.  Added to our existing data from the last decade results in a total of 42 million records available on the site.  All obtained from the agency’s own pay data using requests made under the California Public Records Act, all are available online for free to anyone with an interest at http://transparentcalifornia.com.

Pay and benefit costs are the single largest expense in our government. Transparent California’s site provides members of the public with unprecedented visibility into that spending.  Knowing how government employees are personally benefiting from state and local spending is critical to ensuring true accountability in our government.

In 2022 over a million public employees, and over 125,000 pension recipients, enjoyed compensation packages totaling over $100,000 per year.  Using the data available we can see the City Manager in Norco was provided total compensation of $539,705, the school superintendent in Ontario-Montclair was paid $643,796, and a police lieutenant in Vallejo made $839,798.   

(Editor’s Note: According to an April 2021 ABC7 News report, Vallejo Police Lieutenant Herman Robinson, a 47-year employee with the department was fired. According to an April 2022 Vallejo Sun report, an arbitrator ordered Robinson be reinstated with back pay and be paid 10% interest on his back pay. He “was one of the most highly paid city of Vallejo employees and received $179,590 in base pay and $196,941 in overtime pay for calendar year 2020, according to Transparent California, a website that tracks California government worker salaries. With benefits included, Robinson earned $547,403.68.”

Thus, the $839,798 for 2022 included two years of compensation including the 10% interest on the back pay.)

UPDATE: That information was shared with Transparent California’s Director of Research, Todd Maddison. In response he wrote, “Thanks, appreciate the background.  We are rarely if ever given the ‘story’ behind any particular pay data, and with over 4 million records a year to collect we usually don’t investigate unless someone feels the number is erroneous. We do offer agencies the ability to make a note if they want so site users don’t think an outlier is ‘normal pay’, but we’re rarely taken up on that.

Meanwhile, in 2022 there were 67 police employees who made total pay only (excluding benefits) of over $400,000. I’ve attached a spreadsheet of police employees in case you’re interested.”

TC 2022SafetyEmployeesPolicePay 20240418

That spreadsheet shows the highest paid police officer in Contra Costa County in 2022 was Richmond Police Sergeant Florencio Rivera, whose total compensation was $512,432. A total of 15 officers in the county were paid more than $500,000 each, with 11 of them from the El Cerrito PD.

The Transparent California website gives ordinary taxpayers access to such data, illuminating the spending that drive state and local government deficits, including the $73 billion in red ink being projected by the state.

Data collection for 2023 compensation is now starting.  Those who want to monitor specific agencies can subscribe (free) or support the effort by sponsoring data collection from that agency.

Maddison noted, “2022 data collection was a great achievement.  We’re particularly proud our small donor funded team lapped the State Controller’s Office’s government-funded effort in K-12 education,  collecting data from 1055 districts to their 424.  We’re focused on giving the people of California the data they deserve to see how their tax dollars are being spent.”

For more information go to http://transparentcalifornia.com.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

California colleges agree on how to interpret in-state tuition law for illegal immigrant students

By Leave a Comment

Students between classes at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Credit: Ashley Bolter / EdSource

Some have been exempt from paying out-of-state tuition since 2001

By Zaidee Stavely, EdSource – Republished with permission

More than 20 years ago, California passed a law allowing some undocumented immigrant students to attend college with in-state tuition, if they meet certain requirements.

But immigrant rights advocates say many students who should have been eligible have been wrongfully denied in-state tuition because of confusion over requirements, misinformation and different interpretations of the law at different college campuses.

“We lose that incredible brain power and colleges are losing enrollment,” said Nancy Jodaitis, director of higher education for Immigrants Rising, a nonprofit organization that advocates for undocumented people to achieve educational and career goals.

Immigrants Rising brought together officials from all three public college systems — California Community Colleges, California State University and University of California — to discuss and agree on answers to frequently-asked questions about the law.

Source: Immigrants Rising

The result is a document called the Systemwide AB 540 FAQ, which all three systems have now signed. The document includes answers to 59 questions, such as:

  • What if a student graduated from a California high school (completing three years’ worth of high school credits), but did not attend three years at a California high school?
  • Does a student have to take classes full time for their attendance to count?
  • Does all their coursework have to be taken at the same school?

Spokespeople from UC, CSU and California Community Colleges all celebrated the document.

Paul Feist, vice chancellor of communications and marketing for the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, said the document is particularly important because there are several different laws regarding the nonresident tuition exemption.

The first bill exempting some undocumented immigrants from out-of-state tuition, Assembly Bill 540, was signed into law in 2001. Since then, three other bills have been passed to expand the law, in 2014, 2017 and 2022.

“While the intent was to expand access to AB 540 financial assistance, they had the unintended effect of making it more difficult to navigate,” Feist said. “This FAQ is designed to provide clearer explanations and provide additional resources in advising students.”

Under current California law, students who are undocumented or have temporary protection from deportation such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, are eligible for in-state tuition and state financial aid, if they attended at least three years of high school, adult school or community college in California and obtained a high school diploma or equivalent, an associate degree or fulfilled the minimum requirements to transfer to a UC or CSU.

Access to state financial aid and in-state tuition can be a critical factor for undocumented students, who are barred from receiving federal financial aid. Without the law in place, some of them would be charged tuition rates for international students, often much higher than in-state tuition.

“This is huge,” said Maria Gutierrez, a college counselor at Chabot College in Hayward and a doctoral student at San Francisco State University. “It helps us be aligned and have something in writing.”  Before the FAQ document, Gutierrez says college staff in charge of approving exemptions from out-of-state tuition were sometimes afraid to make decisions without written proof of how to interpret the law.

Gutierrez herself has benefited from AB 540. She came to the U.S. when she was 5 years old on a visa, which later expired. She attended elementary, middle and most of high school in California. She also graduated from high school in California. But when she applied to attend community college in California, different campuses disagreed on whether she was eligible for in-state tuition because she had spent two years of high school in Utah. At the time, a second law had recently been passed to allow colleges to consider years of attendance in elementary and middle school for AB 540 eligibility.

“One college that I went to in So Cal, I was approved for AB 540. When I had to go back to the Bay Area, I was not approved for AB 540. So then I was confused that there was this inconsistency,” Gutierrez said.

A few years later, when she applied to transfer to a four-year college, both UC and CSU campuses told her she was not eligible for in-state tuition, even though by then, a law had passed that clarified that attendance at community college could be counted toward the requirements. She spent a semester paying out-of-state tuition at San Jose State University, before the university finally acknowledged she was legally eligible for in-state tuition.

As a college counselor, Gutierrez continues to meet students who have been incorrectly told they are not eligible for in-state tuition.

“It’s crazy because in reality it hasn’t changed much,” she said. However, she said, the financial burden is harder now, because most students graduating from high school cannot apply for work permits under DACA, because the government has not accepted new applications since 2017.

“I see my students now and I see the struggles they’re going through. If I didn’t have DACA, I honestly don’t think I would be where I am now,” Gutierrez said. “There’s no way that I would’ve been able to pay nonresident fees or wait for whoever it is that is determining that to learn what they need to do for me to be able to go to college.”

Advocates say they hope the document will help colleges give correct information and avoid students having to research on their own for information.

California also recently streamlined the process for undocumented students to apply for financial aid and exemption from in-state tuition on the same application when they fill out the California Dream Act application. In the past, students had to both fill out a California Dream Act application and an AB 540 affidavit form for each college. Now, the AB 540 form will be part of the same application.

Diana Aguilar-Cruz said that change is significant. Aguilar-Cruz is currently pursuing a master’s degree in public health at Cal State Fullerton. When she first began her undergraduate education at Cal Poly Pomona, she was charged nonresident tuition, which was almost double the in-state tuition. She had immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico City in 2015, when she was 14 years old, and lived with her grandmother in Baldwin Park while attending high school.

She had completed a California Dream Act application, but no one told her she also had to complete a separate form. After researching it herself online, she found the form and completed it, at which point the university finally changed her tuition to in-state.

“If I didn’t find it in my Google search, would I be paying in-state tuition for my four years of college?” Aguilar-Cruz said. “I always think to myself, what would have happened if I was a more fearful student or a student who did not have a strong support system at home?”

According to the Renewing the Dream page on the California Student Aid Commission’s website, “In 2021-22,  only 29% to 30% of undocumented college students who applied for financial aid through the California Dream Act Application (CADAA) ultimately enrolled in school. Moreover, only 14% of California’s estimated undocumented student population in postsecondary education ultimately received state financial aid.”

Allen D Payton contributed to this report.

 

CPUC follows State Senate Republicans’ recommendation, scraps income-based utility bill scheme

By Leave a Comment

 

Sacramento, CA – March 28, 2024 – After immense pressure from California Senate Republicans, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finally listened and is scrapping the income-based utility bill scheme proposed by California’s largest utilities, which came to fruition as a result of Assembly Bill 205 (2022). The non-elective commission released a flat fixed rate proposal, with reduced charges for low-income customers, and is expected to vote on it on May 9, 2024. (See related article)

“I’m cautiously optimistic to see that CPUC’s preliminary decision on a new fixed-rate plan for electrical billing includes a flat rate rather than one of the ludicrous income-based charges that had been proposed,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego). “I’m looking deeper into the proposal and studying how it will affect my constituents and ratepayers across the state. Still, I hope this may be a compromise Californians can live with. At the same time, I anticipate that electricity rates will continue to be a huge affordability issue in California, even under this new flat rate proposal.”

“As vice chair of the Senate Energy, Utility and Communications Committee, l have strongly advocated for affordable and reliable energy for Californians, but the majority party’s misguided approach has been driving up the rates for years,” said Senator Brian Dahle (R-Bieber). “This income-based utility scheme was another disastrous measure. I appreciate the CPUC heeding Republicans’ advice to pause this nonsensical bill, and I will continue to work tirelessly with my colleagues to make energy reform a reality in our state.”

The CPUC’s fixed rate proposal has a 20-day comment period and is eligible for a vote at the next CPUC public meeting on May 9, 2024.

California Senate Republicans have been leading the fight against the income-based electricity charge after Capitol Democrats rammed it through budget trailer bill AB 205 in 2022. In 2023, and as recent as January 2024, Senate Democrats thwarted Senate Republicans’ efforts to provide Californians a lifeline by repealing AB 205. Additionally, this year, Senate Minority Leader Jones and the entire Senate Republican Caucus introduced SB 1326 to repeal the income-based fixed charge mandated by AB 205. Click here to learn more about the caucus’ efforts.

After immense pressure from California Senate Republicans, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finally listened and is scrapping the income-based utility bill scheme, which came to fruition as a result of Assembly Bill 205 (2022). The non-elective commission released a flat fixed rate proposal and is expected to vote on it on May 9, 2024.

Dozens of educators to be laid off in West Contra Costa

By Leave a Comment

The total number of layoffs won’t be finalized by the school board until May

WCCUSD says preliminary layoffs due to county Office of Education directive for “fiscal solvency”

By Monica Velez, EdSource.org

Dozens of educators in the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) will be laid off in the upcoming school year, including grant-funded positions the district can’t afford to absorb.

The district plans to eliminate 104 positions, nearly 40 of those grant-funded, according to district officials. Assistant principals, instructional specialists, psychologists, bilingual paraprofessionals, academic support providers, special education and general education teachers are among the positions being eliminated.

Although some educators received preliminary layoff notices on March 15, the board won’t finalize the total number of eliminations until May, officials said. Some of the eliminated positions were already vacant.

“We understand the community’s concerns about the impact of these layoffs on classroom staffing,” district spokesperson Raechelle Forrest said in an email. “It is important to note that the district is committed to hiring and maintaining qualified and credentialed individuals and that classroom teachers have not received preliminary notices.”

The school board approved layoffs at a meeting earlier this month. Dozens of parents, educators and students spoke during the public comment period, pleading with the board to vote against the layoffs. In particular, many people spoke about the importance of school community outreach worker positions that will be eliminated.

School community outreach workers serve as liaisons between schools and families. Many of those workers are bilingual and can help with translations and teaching non-English speaking parents and students how to navigate the school system. Outreach workers also connect families with resources and can help facilitate meetings when there are language barriers.

Outreach workers were among the grant-funded positions district officials said they couldn’t afford to keep without the extra money. The district would need about $9.4 million to keep the nearly 40 positions that are being axed, district data showed. Many of the positions relying on grant money provided extra support for students: bilingual instructional aides, graduate tutors, coordinators, academic support providers and bilingual paraprofessionals.

In the 2022-23 school year, nearly 32% of students in West Contra Costa Unified were English learners, according to data from the California Department of Education. The percentage of English learners in the district who became fluent in English has dropped significantly since 2018, data shows, dropping from nearly 13% to about 3% in the 2020-21 school year, the most recent data available.

The majority of English learners speak Spanish, about 27% or nearly 8,000 students in the 2022-23 school year. About 30,000 students are enrolled in West Contra Costa Unified.

During public comment, parents and teachers spoke about the vital role outreach workers have for schools and the community. Without them, people contemplated how some families would continue to stay engaged in school communities.

Educators were also outspoken about how the lack of staffing in schools has been affecting learning. Because of larger classes, there are fewer one-on-one opportunities; there’s an uptick in behavioral issues in classes with consistent substitutes, and teachers are losing prep periods in order to fill in for other classes. One student said he hasn’t had permanent teachers in core classes in recent years and, as a result, he hasn’t learned much.

Three complaints were filed with West Contra Costa Unified earlier this year alleging some schools failed to provide students with qualified teachers. The complaints also allege there’s been a pattern of filling vacancies with long-term substitutes, which attorneys at Public Advocates, a nonprofit civil rights law firm, say is illegal.

WCCUSD Says Preliminary Layoffs Due to County Office of Education Directive for “Fiscal Solvency”

Dr. Kenneth Chris Hurst, WCCUSD Superintendent and all five board trustees were asked via email for their perspective.

In response, Forrest, the district’s Interim Communications Director, wrote, “It’s important to clarify that the recent preliminary staff layoff notices are not due to declining enrollment or a shift in priorities, but rather a response to the directive from the Contra Costa County Office of Education to improve our fiscal solvency. We are making difficult decisions with complete transparency and integrity, striving to reduce the impact on classrooms.”

“While it’s true that positions are being eliminated, we are working to retain as many positions as possible, such as SCOWS (School Community Outreach Workers) and music teachers, by making cuts in other areas of the budget,” she continued. “We also want to clarify that while 104 employees received layoff notices, it is inaccurate to state that 104 positions were affected. Of the positions, 58.9 positions were vacant.”

“We want to clarify that SCOWS and music teachers were not included in the RIFs (Reductions in Force) approved by the WCCUSD School Board,” Forrest added.

Monica Velez covers West Contra Costa Unified school district, student well-being and math.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

What to know about money waiting in CalKIDS state-funded savings accounts | Quick Guide

By Leave a Comment

Photo: EdSource.org

Webinar April 17

By Lasherica Thornton, EdSource.org

Over 3.6 million school-aged children across the state qualify for at least $500 in savings with the California Kids Investment and Development Savings program (CalKIDS), a state initiative to help children from low income families save money for college or career.

Just 8.3% of eligible students, or 300,000, have claimed their accounts as many families are unaware of CalKIDS or face challenges accessing the accounts once aware.  The money is automatically deposited into the savings account under a student’s name, but families must claim the accounts by registering online.

Here is information you should know about the state-funded accounts:

What is CalKIDS?

The CalKIDS program was created to help students, especially those from underserved communities, gain access to higher education. It helps families save for post high school training by opening a savings account and depositing between $500 and $1,500 for eligible low-income students in the public school system. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who launched the program in August 2022, invested about $1.9 billion in the accounts.

Who qualifies?

Low-income students and all newborns qualify.

According to program details, low-income public school students are awarded $500 if they:

  • Were in grades 1-12 during the 2021-22 school year
  • Were enrolled in first grade during the 2022-23 school year, or
  • Will be in first grade in subsequent school years.

An additional $500 is deposited for students identified as foster youth and another $500 for students classified as homeless.

For newborns,

  • Children born in California after June 2023, regardless of their parents’ income, are granted $100.
  • Those born in the state between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, were awarded $25 before the seed deposit increased to $100.
  • Newborns get an additional $25 when they claim the account and an additional $50 if parents link the CalKIDS account to a new or existing ScholarShare 529 college savings account.

The California Department of Education determines eligibility based on students identified as low income under the state’s Local Control Funding Formula or English language learners. The California Department of Public Health provides information on newborns.

How can students use the money?

The money can be used at eligible higher education institutions across the country, including community colleges, universities, vocational or technical schools and professional schools, according to CalKIDS.

The funds can be used for: tuition and fees, books and supplies, on or off-campus room and board as well as computer or other required equipment, according to the CalKIDS program guide.

Click here to search for schools that qualify as an eligible higher ed institution. 

Does the CalKIDS account have restrictions similar to those for a 529 savings account?

CalKIDS accounts are a part of the ScholarShare 529 program — California’s official tax-advantaged college savings plan — and administered by the state’s ScholarShare Investment Board.

Transportation and travel costs are usually not considered qualified expenses for 529 savings accounts.

According to the guide for CalKIDS, if a student has no account balance with their higher education institution — which receives the CalKIDS distribution check —  the institution can pay the funds directly to the student.

Does the money in the CalKIDS accounts earn interest?

The deposits grow over time because CalKIDS accounts are interest-bearing.

How aggressive that growth is depends on the age of the student, said Joe DeAnda, communications director with the California State Treasurer’s Office, which oversees the CalKIDS program.

“If it’s a newborn, (the seed deposits are) invested in a fairly aggressive portfolio that assumes 18 years of investing time,” DeAnda said. “If they are school-aged, they’re invested in a more conservative portfolio that assumes a shorter investing timeline and is a more secure portfolio.”

Even among students, the younger a child is, the more aggressive the savings portfolio will be. The investment provides “opportunity to grow savings while the child is younger and better safeguard savings against market fluctuations when the child nears college age,” according to the CalKIDS program guide.

Specifically, accounts for newborns, each new class of first graders and students in grades 1-5 during the 2021-22 school year are invested in a portfolio that corresponds to the year that they’re expected to enter a program after high school, or at age 18. The portfolio will become more conservative as the child gets older.

For students in grades 6-12 during the 2021-22 school year, the accounts are invested with a guaranteed, or fixed, rate of return on the investment.

Can I add to the account?

No, you cannot add money to the CalKIDS account. Parents or guardians can open a ScholarShare 529 account, which can be linked to the CalKIDS account so they can view the accounts in one place.

In fact, CalKIDS encourages families to open a ScholarShare 529 college savings account, which is a way for families to save even more money for their children, DeAnda said.

What if my student already graduated? What happens to unclaimed money?

The accounts remain active under a student’s name until the student turns 26 years old. Up until that age, students can claim the money.

If the account is not claimed by age 26, the account closes, and the money is reallocated to others in the CalKIDS program, DeAnda said.

What if I’m not sure if my child is considered low income?

CalKIDS has sent notification letters of program enrollment to over 3.3 million eligible students and nearly 270,000 students in last school year’s class of first graders.

Without the letters, to check student eligibility, families must enter students’ Statewide Student Identifier (SSID), a 10-digit number that appears on student transcripts or report cards, according to the CalKIDS website.

The California Department of Education provides CalKIDS with data on first graders in the late spring or early summer and asks parents to wait until then before checking for their child’s eligibility.

How do I access that SSID number to check eligibility or to register the account?

The SSID may be found on the parent’s or student’s school portal, transcript or report card.

The CalKIDS website instructs families to contact their child’s school or school district if they’re unsure of how or unable to locate the number.

How do I access or ‘claim’ the account?

The notification letter that CalKIDS sends families contains a unique CalKIDS Code that can be used to register the accounts. Even without the code, families can register the accounts.

To claim the student account:

  1. Visit the CalKIDS registration page to claim the account. Click here to register. 
  2. Enter the county where the student was enrolled (for a student in grades 1-12 in the 2021-22 school year; for a first grader, where the student was enrolled in 2022-23 or subsequent years)
  3. Enter student’s date of birth
  4. Enter the SSID or CalKIDS Code from the notification letter
  5. Click Register
  6. Set up the account, either as the child or as the parent/guardian, with a username and password

To claim the newborn account, which should be available about 90 days after birth:

  1. Visit the CalKIDS registration page to claim the account.
  2. Enter the county where the child was born
  3. Enter child’s date of birth
  4. Enter the Local Registration Number on the child’s birth certificate or CalKIDS Code from the notification letter
  5. Click Register
  6. Set up the account, either as the child or as the parent/guardian, with a username and password

I still need help. How do I get additional support?

Contact CalKIDS at (888) 445-2377 or https://calkids.org/contact-us/

The CalKIDS team is also hosting an April 17 webinar to outline the program, eligibility, account registration, fund distribution and benefits. To sign up for the webinar, click here. 

How does my high school graduate make a withdrawal to use the money?

According to the CalKIDS program guide, to request a distribution, log into the claimed CalKIDS account and request a distribution, which doesn’t have to be for the entire amount. The funds are tax-free for the qualified expenses of tuition, books, fees, computers and equipment.

The student must be at least 17 years old and enrolled at an eligible institution.

The CalKIDS money, which will be sent to the institution, is considered a scholarship from the state of California.

 

 

Wilson has large fundraising lead in 15th Assembly District race

By Leave a Comment

Monica Wilson (Source: Wilson for Assembly campaign) and campaign finances in 2024 through Feb. 17th. Source: Cal-Access

Avila Farias in second, Mitchoff a close third, Ledo a distant fourth

Antioch Mayor Pro Tem voted to appoint 3 residents to new Police Oversight Commission after receiving contributions from them

By Allen D. Payton

According to the latest required campaign finance reports Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson has a commanding lead in fundraising over her three rivals in the 15th Assembly District race on Tuesday’s primary election ballot.

The reports, known as Forms 460 and 497 on the California Secretary of State’s Cal-Access website, show Wilson has raised over $300,000 almost three times what her next closest rival, Contra Costa School Board Trustee Anamarie Avila Farias has, who raised a little over $108,000. Former County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff has raised close to $90,000 and Realtor Sonia Ledo, the only Republican in the race, has raised about $7,300.

In addition, as of Feb. 17th, their reports show Wilson’s campaign spent two-and-a-half times what her closest opponent did with $267,491.18 to Avila Farias’ $104,542.71, Mitchoff’s $75,757.72 and Ledo’s $16,260.33.

The most unique contribution was made to Wilson’s campaign from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC for $4,000.

Wilson Outpaces, Outraises, Outspends Opponents With Help From Unions & Attorneys

The reports for Wilson, who is serving as treasurer for her own campaign committee, show she has raised $129,068.64 last year, $203,555 total with $275 of non-monetary or what are referred to as in-kind contributions $203,280 in cash. In 2023 as of Feb.17 she raised $94,440.51 this year with $94,222.77 in cash contributions and $217.74 of in-kind contributions. Since then, according to several Form 497 Late Contribution Reports, Wilson’s campaign has received an additional $38,600 in contributions after Feb. 17 for a total of $306,091.18 in contributions to date, including $492.74 of in-kind contributions.

$11,000 from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers Local 549 PAC with $5,500 reserved for the general election;

$10,900 each from American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees-CA People Small Contributor Committee, California Nurses Association PAC (CNA-PAC) Small Contributor Committee, California State Council of Service Employees Small Contributor Committee, Service Employees International Union Local 1000 Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee, Standing Committee on Political Education of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO Small Contributor Committee, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC Small Contributor Committee, SEIU Local 2015 State PAC Small Contributor Committee, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC Small Contributor Committee, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Small Contributor Committee, and United Domestic Workers of America Action Fund Small Contributor Committee;

$10,500 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local Union 302 PAC Small Contributor Committee;

$5,500 each from Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104 Political Committee, Steamfitters U.A. Local 342 PAC, United Association No. 159 Consumer Protection Fund sponsored by Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 159, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – Council 57 PAC, California African American PAC, Consumer Attorneys of California PAC, affordable housing activist and former Planned Parenthood leader Karen Grove of Menlo Park, IBEW Local 551 PAC, Operating Engineers Local Union 3 Statewide PAC Small Contributor Committee, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West PAC Small Contributor Committee, IBEW Local 595 PAC Small Contributor Committee, IBEW PAC Educational Fund, and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Political Action Together Legislative & Educational Committee (MPO) i.e. multipurpose organization;

$10,217 from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 617 PAC;

$5,000 each from Corey Jackson for Assembly 2024, Faculty for our University’s Future, a committee sponsored by the California Faculty Association Small Contributor Committee, and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee;

$4,500 from IBEW Local Union 1245 PAC;

$4,000 from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC;

$3,000 each from California SMART (Sheet Metal Air Rail Transportation) TD (Transportation Division) (formerly United Transportation Union) PAC, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 Legislative PAC and Bryan for Assembly 2024, and California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers PAC Small Contributor Committee;

$2,500 each from Ash Kalra for Assembly 2024, California Federation of Teachers COPE Small Contributor Committee, Cathryn Campbell of El Cerrito, a Berkeley Unified School District teacher, Electing Climate Champions Fund sponsored by California Environmental Voters, Lori Wilson for Assembly 2024, District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity PAC Small Contributor Committee, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas for Senate 2026, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 11 PAC Small Contributor Committee, and Republic Services LE03-AWIN Management Inc., United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee,

$2,417 from Progressive Era PAC, which works “to elect governing majorities of leaders in California committed to building a progressive era for people of color;”

$2,000 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local #6 Political Account Small Contributor Committee, political campaign consultant Melody Howe Weintraub of Lafayette, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 5 PAC, Marysville Central Labor Council PAC;

$1,600 from The California Women’s List PAC;

$1,500 each from DRIVE (International Brotherhood of Teamsters Democrat, Republican, Independent Voter Education) Committee, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 Legislative PAC, United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC Small Contributor Committee, and a variety of personal injury attorneys including: Altair Law, LLP in San Francisco, Baron & Budd, P.C. law firm of Dallas, TX, Gregory Bentley from Newport Beach of Bentley & More, LLP, Michael Bidart from Claremont, CA of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley, LLP, Elizabeth Cabraser from from Sebastopol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Brian Chase from Newport Beach of Bisnar, Chase Trial Lawyers, LLP, Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy, LLP of Burlingame, Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood, & Campora, LLP of Sacramento, Don Ernst of the Ernst Law Group in San Luis Obispo, Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP of El Segundo, Knight Law Group of Los Angeles, Law Offices of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger of San Francisco, McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP of Los Angeles, Panish, Shea, Boyle, Ravipudi, LLP of Los Angeles, Rizio Lipinsky Law Firm of Santa Ana, Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. of Newport Beach, Singleton Schreiber, LLP of San Diego, Mickel Arias of Arias, Sanguinetti, Wang & Torrijos, LLP in Los Angeles, and Elizabeth A. Carazolez from San Diego,  Director of Management of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield, LLP;

$1,000 each from former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, Melony Wilson, Controller for advertising agency LIDA NY, LLP of New York, Terrance Wilson of Brentwood, National Union of Healthcare Workers Candidate Committee for Quality Patient Care and Union Democracy, Gipson for Assembly 2024, Black Elected Officials of the East Bay PAC, and Dallas Fowler of Los Angeles, a business development and political consultant;

$750 from Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton;

$600 from former City of Antioch public information officer Rolando Bonilla;

$500 each from International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators, Allied Workers Local 16, AFL-CIO PAC, Teamsters Local Union No. 315 PAC, and UA Local No. 228 Building Corporation PAC Small Contributor Committee of Marysville.

Wilson also received contributions of $200 from Antioch resident Devin Williams and $100 each from Antioch residents Harry Thurston and Leslie May, all of whom the councilwoman recently voted to appoint to the City’s new Police Oversight Commission.

As of Feb. 17th, Wilson had spent $267,491.18, with no outstanding debts and had $51,077.94 cash on hand.

Anamarie Avila Farias (Source: Avila Farias for Assembly) and her campaign finances for 2024 through Feb. 17th. Source: Cal-Access

Avila Farias Files Financial Forms, Funded by Faculty, Firefighters, Cops, Casino Indian Tribes & Healthcare Workers

The list of Assembly District 15 candidates on the Cal-Access website, as of Sunday, Feb. 3, 2024, incorrectly shows Avila Faria’s name not highlighted to access her campaign financial information and reports.

In spite of the fact that Avila Farias’ name is not highlighted on the State Assembly candidates page of the Cal-Access website, making it appear that her campaign failed to file the required financial forms, a search of her name on that website reveals she has.

Avila Farias’ campaign raised $48,195.23 last year, $50,598 as of Feb. 17th and an additional $9,500 since then, for a total of $108,293.23 with just $43 of in-kind contributions. Her largest contributions were:

$12,900 from Peace Officers Research Association PORAC PAC

$10,900 from California Teachers Association For Better Citizenship;

$5,500 each from Western Manufactured Housing Committee PAC, California Professional Firefighters PAC, PACE of CA School Employees Association, California Latino PAC and Pechanga Band of Indians, owners of a Southern California casino, and Housing Contractors of CA PAC;

$5,000 from redistricting lawyers Shenkman & Hughes PC of Malibu, CA;

$4,000 from International Association of Fire Fights Local 1230 PAC;

$2,500 each from California Federation of Teachers COPE, Cal Fire Local 2881 SCC, Morongo Band of Mission Indians owners of another Southern California casino, and Bianca Rubio for Assembly 2024;

$2,000 each from California Financial Services Association PAC, Construction Employers’ Association PAC and California Nations Indian Gaming Assoc.

$1,500 from Eli Lily and Company PAC;

$1,324.23 from Yazmin Llamas-Morales from Martinez of Allied Mortgage Group Finance;

$1,000 from National Union of Healthcare Workers, Manuel G. Avila & Domitila Avila Trust of Martinez, Blanca Pacheco for Assembly 2024, James Cervantes of Lafayette, Assemblymember David Alvarez of San Diego, and real estate developer William Schrader, Jr. of Alamo, owner of The Austin Group LLC.

Her Form 460 report ending Feb. 17th shows Avila Farias spent $77,848.32 this year for a total of $104,542.71 during the campaign, had $41,215.02 in accrued expenses and an ending cash balance of $49,051.87.

Karen Mitchoff (Source: Mitchoff for Assembly) and her campaign finances for 2024 as of Feb. 17, 2024. Source: Cal-Access.

Mitchoff Backed by Big Oil, Business, Beer & Builders

Mitchoff raised $68,769 in 2023 and as of Feb. 17 has raised $23,399 this year for a total of $92,168 of which $3,063 were non-monetary contributions. Her largest contributions were:

$5,500 each from Chevron Policy Government & Public Affairs, Phillips 66, PBF Holding Company LLC (Betsy Brien) of Parsippany, New Jersey, which owns the Martinez Refinery, Western States Petroleum Association California PAC, Walmart, Inc., Yasef Pinson of Yasef Pinson Real Estate in Los Angeles, and Devora Pinson, Executive Office Manager of Boardwalk West Financial Services, also in Los Angeles;

$5,000 each from California Family Beer Distributors Association PAC, Marathon Petroleum Corporation and its Subsidiaries/Affiliates, Build Jobs PAC, Sponsored by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery (MDRR) PAC and MDRR’s owner, Sil Garaventa;

$4,000 from American Property Casualty Insurance Association California PAC;

$3,000 from the California Building Industry Association PAC;

$2,500 from Concerned Americans for Responsible Government, Sponsored by the California Trucking Association (CARGO PAC);

$1,500 each from California Permanente Medical Groups PAC and Walnut Creek-based retail developer Brian Hirarara;

$1,000 each from former Antioch Mayor Donald Freitas, Joseph Garaventa, Sil’s brother, John McPeak, former County Supervisor Sunne McPeak’s husband, and Sheila Stokley, Property Manager of Stokley Properties in Pleasant Hill and Zell & Associates of Point Richmond.

Mitchoff’s campaign also received in-kind contributions of $1,800 from Brandon C. Bjerke, a Legislative Analyst for the California State Assembly, for website design and maintenance, as well as $1,164 from lawyer Patricia Curtin of Lafayette for fundraiser event costs.

As of Feb. 17th, Mitchoff’s campaign committee had spent $50,205.74 this year for a total of $75,757.72 during the campaign, had no outstanding debts and an ending cash balance of $17,185.74 as of Feb. 17th.

Sonia Ledo (Source: Ledo for Assembly) and her campaign finances for 2024 through Feb. 17, 2024. Source: Cal-Access

Ledo Lends Herself, Raises Least

Ledo’s campaign finance reports show she has raised $1,655.88 in 2023 and $5,664 in 2024 as of Feb. 17 for a total of $7,319.88 of which $99 was non-monetary contributions.

Besides herself, Ledo’s largest contribution was from the BART Police Officers Association for $2,000. As of Feb. 17th, her campaign had outstanding debts of $7,315.26 most of which is owed to herself for the filing fee for her candidate’s statement and the balance is owed to a Christos Moulis of Concord for Ledo’s filing fee. Her campaign had spent a total of $16,260.33 and an ending cash balance of $5,898.19.

The top two candidates in the primary election will face off in the November general election to replace outgoing Assemblyman Tim Grayson who is running for the 9th State Senate District instead.

 

PAC opposing Wilson in Assembly District 15 race spends over $200K to defeat her

By Leave a Comment

The Leadership for California: East Bay Committee financial disclosure reports show expenditures for three mailers against Monica Wilson in the Assembly District 15 race and two mailers supporting Tim Grayson in the State Senate District 9 race. Source: Cal-Access

Same PAC is supporting Grayson in Senate District 9 race

By Allen D. Payton

So far, a political action committee named “Leadership for California: East Bay Committee, Sponsored by Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy” has spent $214,162 to oppose Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson in her campaign for the State Assembly District 15 seat.

To date, the PAC has paid for three mailers against Wilson between Feb. 7th to 15th, ranging in cost from $58,569 to $77,492, according to the PAC’s Form 460 financial disclosure report from Jan. 1 thru Feb. 17, 2024.

The Leadership for California East Bay Committe Form 460 report dated Feb. 17, 2024 shows expenditures for polling, research and a mailer against Wilson. Source: Cal-Access

According to Cal-Access, the California Secretary of State’s political campaign finance website, the PAC raised $333,392.50 as of Feb. 17, including:

$260,000 from Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy ID# 1275549;

$49,000 from American Beverage Association California PAC;

$10,000 from Keeping Californians Working, a Coalition of Insurance Agents, Technology, Energy, and Health Care Providers; and

$14,392.50 as an in-kind non-monetary contribution by Brighter Future for All ID# 1463665 for polling and research.

The Leadership for CA East Bay Committe Form 496 report dated Feb. 22, 2024, shows expenditures for another mailer against Wilson. Source: Cal-Access

Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy Supported By Medical, Business Interests

According to Cal-Access, contributors to The Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy PAC include the California Medical Association PAC, Target, Dart Container, Cooperative of American Physicians State PAC, Californians Allied for Patient Protection PAC, California Cable Telecommunications Association, Davita, Lyft, Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) PAC, Fresenius Medical Care, In-N-Out Burgers, California Real Estate PAC, Chevron, PG&E, Walmart, Chime Financial, Inc., Anheuser-Busch Companies, McDonald’s Corporation and California Bankers Association State PAC.

The Leadership for CA East Bay Committe Form 496 report dated Feb. 28, 2024, shows expenditures for a third mailer. Source: Cal-Access

Same East Bay PAC is Supporting Grayson for Senate

The same Leadership for California: East Bay Committee PAC also spent $72,350 on two mailers supporting Assemblyman Tim Grayson, for whose seat Wilson is seaking, in his campaign for State Senate District 9.

Wilson is facing three opponents in the race for Assembly District 15, including two fellow Democrats, County Board of Education Trustee Anamarie Avila Farias and former County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, and one Republican, Realtor Sonia Ledo. The election is next Tuesday, March 5th and the top two vote-getters will face off in the November general election.

 

 

 

Unions backing Wilson in Assembly race spend $253K attacking opponent Mitchoff

By Leave a Comment

The Opportunity PAC’s financial disclosure reports show expenditures for three of the four “hit piece” mailers against Karen Mitchoff in the Assembly District 15 race. Source: Cal-Access

By Allen D. Payton

One of four mailers opposing Mitchoff paid for by Opportunity PAC with funds form by unions.

Some of the same unions backing Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson in the Assembly District 15 race on the March primary ballot have spent almost $253,000 attacking one of her three opponents, former Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff.

At least four mailers have been sent to Democrat voters in the district criticizing Mitchoff’s pay raise she voted for while on the board, and her votes against pay raises for county employees.

Two of the mailers obtained by the Herald show they were paid for by “Opportunity PAC – A coalition of teachers, health care givers, faculty members, school employees, and public and private employee organizations.” The political action committee’s Top Funders for the mailers are listed as SEIU (Service Employees International Union) California State Council, California Faculty Association (of the UC and CSU systems) and California School Employee Association.

Another of four mailers opposing Mitchoff paid for by Opportunity PAC with a similar message about her vote for a pay raise for the Board of Supervisors.

When asked about the mailers Mitchoff said they’re all pretty much about the same issue. The same group with the same message. My decision was made over 10 years ago and I wanted to make sure the county supervisors were paid to make it a full-time position.” She also pointed out that she did vote for pay raises for county employees, “in 2022, giving them 5% a year for four years, for a total increase of 20%.”

The interesting part is that some of the state teachers’ unions including college and university faculty and staff are helping pay for the mailers, even though as a member of the Board of Supervisors, Mitchoff had no say about education funding.

According to Cal-Access, the California Secretary of State’s campaign finance reporting website, so far, the PAC has made three expenditures of $46,446.03 each for three mailers opposing Mitchoff, two on Feb. 1 and one on Feb. 13, 2024. The cost for a fourth mailer that appear under the PAC’s Accrued Expenses show an additional $46,446.03. That totals $185,784.12. In addition, the PAC spent $37,000.00 on polling and consulting and $30,126.43 on research in their effort against Mitchoff.

Other Opportunity PAC Expenditures opposing Mitchoff were for polling, consulting and research. Source: Cal-Access

Contributions to PAC Total Over $2.5 Million

The PAC is supporting and opposing a variety of candidates throughout the state. Their most recent Form 460 financial disclosure report dated Feb. 17, 2024, shows they have raised $1.715 million this year and their report ending Dec. 31, 2023, shows $803,500 was raised last year for a total of $2,518,500. They had cash on hand of over $1.1 million as of Feb. 17th.

Contributions include the following amounts and sources:

$750,000 from the California Teachers Association Independent Expenditure Committee;

$534,500 from SEIU California State Council for Working People;

$225,000 from PACE (Political Action for Classified Employees) of California School Employees Association;

$190,000 from Smart Justice California Action Fund;

$150,000 from United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Independent Expenditure PAC;

$150,000 from California Federation of Teachers COPE (Committee on Political Education);

$150,000 from Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Keeping California Healthy, Safe and Strong;

$100,000 from Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Workers’ Strength Committee;

$75,000 from SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC;

$59,500 from Faculty for Our University’s Future, a committee sponsored by California Faculty Association;

$59,500 from Standing Committee on Political Education of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO;

$50,000 from the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay Bisexual & Transgender) Caucus Leadership Fund; and

$25,000 from SEIU California State Council (nonprofit 501 (c)(5))

Opportunity PAC Accrued Expenses as of their Feb. 17, 2024 report includes $46,446.03 for a fourth mailer opposing Mitchoff. Source: Cal-Access

Wilson’s Backers Funding Mitchoff Opposition Effort

Wilson’s campaign has been the beneficiary of support from many of those same unions. On her campaign website, Wilson shows endorsements by the California Faculty Association, SEIU California, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) and United Food & Commercial Workers Local 5, as well as unions that are members of the AFL-CIO.

Wilson and Mitchoff also face two others in the race, including County School Board Trustee Anamarie Avila Farias and Realtor Sonia Ledo in the March 5th primary election next Tuesday. The top two will face off in the November election.

 

CA Legislative Analyst’s Office increases state deficit by $15 billion to $73 billion

By Leave a Comment

The 2024‑25 Budget

Deficit Update

Under LAO Revenue Update, Budget Problem Grows by $15 Billion

February 20, 2024

From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, The California Legislature’s Non-Partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor

The state already faces a significant deficit this year—we estimate it totaled $58 billion under the administration’s revenue forecast at the time the Governor’s budget was proposed in January. However, recent revenue collections data reflect even further weakness relative to those estimates. Specifically, our forecast is about $24 billion below the Governor’s budget across 2022‑23 to 2024‑25. All else equal, this means the budget problem is likely to be higher at the time of the May Revision. The actual increase in the state’s budget problem will depend on a number of factors, including formula-driven spending changes, most notably Proposition 98 spending requirements for schools and community colleges. (Due to specific circumstances this year, changes in revenues are unlikely to have a significant effect on the state’s other major formula-driven spending requirements, specifically related to Proposition 2.) Roughly, a $24 billion erosion in revenues corresponds to a $15 billion increase in the budget problem. This would expand the $58 billion estimated deficit to $73 billion under our updated revenue forecast.

Options to Address $15 Billion in Additional Budget Problem

If the budget problem increases by $15 billion, the Legislature will need to find a like amount of new budget solutions to ensure the budget is balanced for 2024‑25. Budget solutions include, for example: revenue increases and spending reductions (on both a one-time and ongoing basis), as well as other tools, like reserves and cost shifts. As the Legislature considers how to address this increased budget problem, we have put together a set of tables identifying one-time and temporary spending that could be pulled back or reduced in order to achieve budgetary savings. Below, we explain why we set forth these amounts as a possible first option to addressing a larger budget problem and then walk through our method for estimating the amounts potentially available in more detail.

Why Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending?

The Legislature will weigh the implications of each possible solution—including increasing revenues and spending reductions—against others and, ultimately, choose a mix of solutions based on its priorities. We recommend the Legislature start by reviewing whether recent augmentations for one-time and temporary spending could be pulled back or reduced. We recommend this approach for two key reasons. First, when this one-time and temporary spending was adopted, it was understood that doing so would provide a cushion for future budget problems. For example, the administration frequently displayed “operating surpluses” in its multiyear forecasts excluding this type of spending—implying that the administration understood that the state could not afford all of the commitments under its own projections, but the state could afford the ongoing budget.

Second, the more the Legislature reduces one-time and temporary spending this year, the more other tools it can preserve for future budget problems. Reducing one-time and temporary spending is a “use or lose” tool for addressing the budget problem—once the funds are disbursed to recipients, pulling them back becomes practically impossible. Other tools, like reserve withdrawals and cost shifts, also can be used only once, but at any time. Saving them to deploy in the future can help the Legislature avoid cuts to ongoing services—which involve very difficult decisions. For example, in the Great Recession, the programs with some of the largest expenditure reductions were in health and human services, including to Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to low-income individuals and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which provides income assistance to low-income individuals. Although the federal government has certain requirements for minimum state participation in these programs, California provides services well above these minimums. As a result, reductions tend to be concentrated in these areas because they are the ones where the state has the most flexibility to reduce spending without raising issues related to requirements imposed by courts, the voters, and the federal government. As such, maintaining other tools like reserves and cost shifts now could help mitigate reductions in these areas in the future.

Options Possibly Available to Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending

State Allocated Large Shares of Surpluses to Temporary Purposes, Although Some Has Been Disbursed or Already Proposed for Reduction. Recent budgets allocated tens of billions of dollars in surpluses to one-time and temporary spending, including in 2023‑24, 2024‑25, and 2025‑26. Some spending, most notably for 2023‑24, has already been disbursed or encumbered. This means, for example, that grants have been awarded, funds have been transferred to other entities of government, and contracts or leases have been signed. (In some cases, funds have also been committed for 2024‑25 and 2025‑26, for example, through grant awards.) In addition, the Governor has already proposed pulling back much—but not all—of the undisbursed spending associated with these augmentations.

State Has Nearly $16 Billion in Recent One-Time and Temporary Spending That Could Possibly Still Be Pulled Back or Reduced. After setting aside disbursements and Governor’s budget proposals, we estimate the state possibly could pull back and reduce one-time and temporary augmentations by as much as $6.4 billion in 2023‑24, $4.1 billion in 2024‑25, and $5.1 billion in 2025‑26. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these amounts by program area, while the Appendix includes a complete list of them. These figures represent our current estimates of the amounts for which the Legislature has broad authority to make reductions, which could help the state address a larger budget problem in May. (In some cases, however, further disbursements could occur between now and May, such smaller amounts would be available for reduction at that time.)

Figure 1

Summary of Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending

(In Millions)

2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
Business and Labor $266 $284 $198
Criminal Justice 130 40 —
Education 602 1,195 1,109
Health and Human Services 867 301 701
Housing and Homelessness 1,599 — 260
Other 1,752 557 432
Resources and Environment 1,049 1,005 1,377
Transportation 146 739 1,000
Totals $6,411 $4,121 $5,076
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.

This Information Reflects Our Best Current Understanding. While these estimates reflect the best information we have available, in many cases we do not have perfect information from the administration about the current status of funds. As such, we would view this list as a starting place for the Legislature as it begins crafting the final budget package. For any specific reductions, particularly in 2023‑24, the Legislature could ask the administration for detailed and up-to-date information on disbursements and encumbrances.

More Could Be Pulled Back From Earlier Years. For the purposes of this analysis, we only reviewed disbursements and encumbrances authorized for 2023‑24 and later. There is, however, additional spending attributable to 2022‑23 and earlier that has not yet been disbursed. The Legislature could ask the administration to provide information about the amount of unspent funds from these earlier years.

Appendix Tables

Appendix Figure 1

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Business and Labor

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
EDD New IT overhaul—EDDNext $99 — —
GO Biz California Competes Grants 10 — —
HCAI Health and home care workforce package 85 $259 $198
HCAI Behavioral health workforce capacity 52 — —
HCAI Various other health care workforce initiatives 20 25 —
Totals $266 $284 $198
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
EDD = Employment Development Department; IT = information technology; GO Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Appendix Figure 2

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Criminal Justice

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
BSCC Adult Reentry Grant $20 — —
CDCR Expansion of community reentry centers 40 $40 —
CDCR Various capital projects at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center 20 — —
OES Nonprofit Security Grant Program 40 — —
OES Family Justice Centers 10 — —
Totals $130 $40 —
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections; CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and OES = Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

Appendix Figure 3

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Education

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CSAC Golden State Teacher Grants $91 $128 $1
CSU CSU Dominguez Hills Dymally Institute facility 15 — —
DGS State share for school construction projects 472 994 485
DGS Construction and renovation of transitional kindergarten, State Preschool, and full‑day kindergarten facilities — — 550
OPR California College Corps Program — 73 73
UC Cancer Research Relating to Firefighters 7 — —
UC UC Berkeley School of Journalism Police Records Access Project 7 — —
UC UC Los Angeles Ralph J. Bunche Center 5 — —
UC UC Davis Equine Performance and Rehabilitation Center 5 — —
Totals $602 $1,195 1,109
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
CSAC = Student Aid Commission; DGS = Department of General Services; and OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Appendix Figure 4

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Health and Human Services

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CalHHS Health innovation accelerator initiative — — $43
CDPH Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years $268 — —
CDPH COVID‑19 response 25 — —
CDPH Public health IT systems 9 — —
CDPH Public education and change campaign — $40 5
Aging Modernizing the Older Californians Act — 37 37
DHCS Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program — — 235
DHCS Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program — 100 381
DHCS Evidence‑based and community‑defined behavioral health programs — 109 —
DSS CalFresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot — 15 —
HCAI Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years 565 — —
Totals $867 $301 $701
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
CalHHS = Health and Human Services Agency; CDPH = California Department of Public Health; Aging = Department of Aging; DHCS = Department of Health Care Services; DSS = Department of Social Services; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Appendix Figure 5

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Housing and Homelessness

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
BCH Agencya Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP) $1,100 — $260
BCH Agency Encampment Resolution Grants 299 — —
HCD Portfolio Reinvestment Program 100 — —
HCD Multifamily Housing Program 75 — —
HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant Program 25 — —
Totals $1,599 — $260
aBy the time the HHAPP costs are incurred, the program will have transferred to from BCSH Agency to HCD.
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
BCH Agency Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and HCD = Department of Housing and Community Development.

Appendix Figure 6

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Other

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CDT Broadband infrastructure—increased middle‑mile network costs $420 $250 —
CPUC Broadband infrastructure—last‑mile projects 900 100 $200
CPUC Broadband infrastructure—Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund 175 150 175
GO‑Biz Fresno Infrastructure Plan 50 — —
OPR Establish new office of public outreach 60 57 57
SCO California State Payroll System 147 — —
Totals $1,752 $557 $432
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages
CDT = California Department of Technology; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; GO‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; and SCO = State Controller’s Office.

Appendix Figure 7

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Resources and Environment

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CalEPA Environmental Justice Initiative (Community Resilience Package) $5 — —
CalFire Post‑fire reforestation and regeneration (Wildfire Resilience Package) 50 — —
CalFire Emergency surge (helitanker contract component) 45 $45 —
CalFire Forest Improvement Program (Wildfire Resilience Package) 13 — —
CalFire Tribal engagement (Wildfire Resilience Package) 10 — —
CARB FARMER program 75 — —
CARB Clean Cars 4 All (ZEV Package) 50 — —
CARB AB 617 (Community Resilience Package) 50 — —
CARB Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) 20 — —
CEC Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan (SB 846) 100 400 $500
CEC Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (Energy Package) 100 25 25
CEC Demand Side Grid Support (Energy Package) 95 — —
CEC Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) — 53 92
CNRA Water resilience projects (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 171 — —
CNRA Tribal nature‑based solutions program (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) 30 — —
CPUC Residential Solar and Storage (Energy Package) — 50 100
DTSC Brownfield cleanups — 85 15
DWR Flood and dam safety (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 53 — —
DWR Oroville Pump Storage (Energy Package) 4 10 20
DWR American River flood project — 27 —
DWR Urban flood risk reduction — 35 —
DWR Strategic Reliability Assets (Energy Package) — 75 75
DWR Water conveyance, water storage (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) — — 500
Go‑Biz or CNRA Diablo Canyon land use planning — — 50
IBank Transmission Financing (Energy Package) 25 — —
OPC Ocean protection (Coastal Resilience Package) 13 — —
OPC Coastal resilience SB 1 implementation (Coastal Resilience Package) 1 — —
OPR Community‑Based Public Awareness Campaign (Extreme Heat Package) 14 — —
SWRCB Water recycling, groundwater cleanup (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 17 — —
SWRCB Drinking water and wastewater projects (Drought‑Water Resilience) — 200 —
Various Misc Nature‑Based Solutions Package 9 — —
Various Misc Wildfire Resilience Package 5 — —
WCB Protect fish and wildlife from changing conditions (Nature‑Based Solutions) 49 — —
WCB Various WCB programs (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) 46 — —
Totals $1,049 $1,005 $1,377
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages
CalEPA = California Environmental Protection Agency; CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; DTSC = Department of Toxics and Substances Control; DWR = Department of Water Resources; Go‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; IBank =California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; OPC = Ocean Protection Council; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board; and WCB = Wildlife Conservation Board.

Appendix Figure 8

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Transportation

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
Caltrans Clean California $146 — —
CalSTA Transit and rail funding (Transportation Infrastructure) — $739 $1,000
Totals $146 $739 $1,000
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation and CalSTA = California State Transportation Agency.

 

Valentine’s Day marchers call on UC Regents, Chancellors to “Break Up with Blackstone”

By Leave a Comment

Marches at two of seven UC campuses on Valentine’s Day. Source: AFSCME 3299 Facebook page

Hundreds of students, workers, tenants participate at 7 UC campuses; claim UC is major shareholder in $3.5B controversial private equity investment trust that’s been linked to state’s housing affordability Crisis

On Valentine’s Day, Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2024, students, the University of California’s (UC) union of low-wage frontline service and patient care workers – members of AFSCME Local 3299 – alongside Blackstone tenants and community members with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) called on UC Chancellors to “Break up with Blackstone” and invest in affordable housing. The global Wall Street private equity firm Blackstone has become the largest landlord in America and has been accused of worsening high housing costs and evictions.

Actions were held across the state in seven locations on the campuses of UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara and UC San Diego. The renewed call to divest from Blackstone follows the announcement of its $3.5 billion acquisition of Tricon Residential Inc. UC invested $4.5 billion in Blackstone’s BREIT in 2023 to boost investor confidence amid a wave of shareholder redemptions.

Blackstone went on an aggressive buying spree in 2021 and 2022, expanding its residential real estate empire, and adding over 200,000 housing units to its portfolio, including 5,600 naturally occurring affordable housing units in the San Diego area. ACCE released a report earlier this year with the Private Equity Stakeholder Project showing that Blackstone had raised rents in some units in San Diego between 43% – 64% in two years. Even before its announced acquisition of Tricon Residential, Blackstone owned more than 300,000 housing units, including a majority stake in the nation’s largest provider of student housing. As California becomes increasingly unaffordable, throwing more families into homelessness, Blackstone’s aggressiveness as one of the largest landlords in the state in hiking up rents for its thousands of units only adds to the problem.

UC acknowledged last year that its staff vacancy rate had tripled under the weight of California’s housing affordability crisis since the start of the COVID Pandemic, but has thus far failed to act on calls from students and workers to divest from Blackstone and invest in more affordable housing.  The University currently houses just 38% of its students in places that cost 30% more, on average than comparable campus communities nationwide. Recent news reports have chronicled the struggles of UC’s low-wage service and patient care workers being forced to commute several hours or sleep in their cars to maintain their employment.

AFSCME Local 3299 represents more than 33,000 Service and Patient Care Technical workers at UC’s 10 campuses, 5 medical centers, numerous clinics, research laboratories, and UC Law, SF.

The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action is a grassroots, member-led, statewide community organization working with more than 16,000 members across California. ACCE is dedicated to raising the voices of everyday Californians, neighborhood by neighborhood, to fight for the policies and programs we need to improve our communities and create a brighter future.